Walt Disney World Co. v. Miller

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walt Disney World Co. v. Miller

644 So. 2d 595, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10715, 1994 WL 600769

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1994

DocketNo. 92-2947

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 644 So. 2d 595 (Walt Disney World Co. v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walt Disney World Co. v. Miller, 644 So. 2d 595, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10715, 1994 WL 600769 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the judge of compensation claims (“JCC”) finding claimant permanently totally disabled (“PTD”) and awarding her PTD benefits. After careful review of the voluminous record on appeal, we must reverse the JCC because we find no competent, substantial evidence to support the award.

Although claimant did suffer a compensa-ble industrial accident in 1988, the record fails to support the JCC’s finding that claimant is now permanently totally disabled. Of the physicians relied on by the JCC, none found an objective basis for claimant’s pain and none could testify that her pain, whether mental or physical in nature, was the result of injury received in the industrial accident. The expert testimony is that claimant’s continuing problems are largely emotional and due to her loss of employment at Walt Disney World. Gomez v. Neckwear, 424 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (en banc).

Accordingly, the order below is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the judge of compensation claims (“JCC”) finding claimant permanently totally disabled (“PTD”) and awarding her PTD benefits. After careful review of the voluminous record on appeal, we must reverse the JCC because we find no competent, substantial evidence to support the award.

Although claimant did suffer a compensa-ble industrial accident in 1988, the record fails to support the JCC’s finding that claimant is now permanently totally disabled. Of the physicians relied on by the JCC, none found an objective basis for claimant’s pain and none could testify that her pain, whether mental or physical in nature, was the result of injury received in the industrial accident. The expert testimony is that claimant’s continuing problems are largely emotional and due to her loss of employment at Walt Disney World. Gomez v. Neckwear, 424 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (en banc).

Accordingly, the order below is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 So. 2d 595, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10715, 1994 WL 600769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walt-disney-world-co-v-miller-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack